God vs Science

[Wild Bill]

I believe that God exists whether proven by science or not. My belief is cemented by my faith.

That being said, I have nothing against science for indeed science is a gift from God. Again, that is my belief.

I can only speak for myself, but I have no problem with someone believing in God. However, I have no respect at all for their attempts to put their mythical explanations of how the Universe works on an equal footing with what Science has discovered. That means evolution, physics, Big Bangs and whatever over Genesis.

Not because I wish to be unfair but simply because the Christian fundamentalist pseudo-scientific doctrines don't make any sense! They don't fit the evidence we discover or the physical laws of how the Universe works that we uncover.

As a parent, I would fight any attempt to put Creationism and such into our schools. It would cripple my children's chances to become scientists with beliefs that would actually WORK in the real world. Try to cure a genetic disease when you believe in Creationism! You haven't a chance of coming up with something that will work! You might as well just give up and sit around praying for miracles.

[Michael Hardner]

As a parent, I would fight any attempt to put Creationism and such into our schools.

Absolutely - there are limits to democracy. Scientific fact can't be voted down.

You have the right to believe down is up, but you don't have the right to have public schools teach that.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Michael Hardner

[TimG]

As a parent, I would fight any attempt to put Creationism and such into our schools.

I strongly encourage it. I think kids deserve to be taught how the scientific method works and why a belief in a creator is not a useful basis for developing a scientific theory (for the reasons I noted above). At the same time, kids can be taught scientific theories can never preclude the existence of a creator and that they should never view the world as a choice between 'accepting science' and 'having faith in a god'. Edited February 3, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

Absolutely - there are limits to democracy. Scientific fact can't be voted down.

Don't confuse fact with theory.

A scientific fact: a ball falls when dropped. A scientific theory: the ball falls because an invisible force called gravity pulls the ball down. Another scientific theory: the ball falls because god (an invisible force) makes it fail.

The main difference between the first and second theory is the first theory allows us to make testable predictions. That makes it useful. The second theory is useless and not worth discussing even if it was a more accurate description of reality (IOW: scientific theories do not have to be true to be useful).

Edited February 3, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Just because something is called 'theory' doesn't mean it's a known fact.

The theory of gravity is a fact, for example. Evolution is a fact too.

[TimG]

The theory of gravity is a fact, for example. Evolution is a fact too.

I think you are misunderstanding the scientific method.

Facts are observations. When I drop a ball it falls. That is an observation and therefore a fact.

Theories are explanations for the observations. The ball falls because of gravity.

Theories are NOT facts.

All theories are imperfect and could be replaced by better theories in the future. Observations, by definition, will not change in the future. Theories can be useful even when we know they are wrong. For example, the Bohr model of an atom is "wrong" but still useful. What makes a theory useful is it ability to allow predictions. Evolution is a useful theory because it allows us to make predictions about how bio-systems change over time.

Evolution is not a fact and should not be presented as a fact. It is an extremely useful theory. Creationism and/or intelligent design is also a theory but it is useless because it does not allow us to make predictions. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant to a scientist because scientists need useful theories - not true ones.

Edited February 3, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

I think you are misunderstanding the scientific method.

Forgive my misunderstanding. How would you differentiate between theories such as gravity and those that are still not bought-into by many scientists ?

[TimG]

Forgive my misunderstanding. How would you differentiate between theories such as gravity and those that are still not bought-into by many scientists?

You talk about the usefulness of a theory rather than its truth. Gravity is an extremely useful theory because it allows for extremely precise predictions. If a theory is has no predictive value then the opinion of scientists on its truth is not particularily interesting.

In fact, I would say that a scientist that believes in a theory even if it has no predictive value is no different than a religious person who believes in god based theories.

When it comes to evolution it is a useful theory because of its predictive abilities in field of microbiology and pest control. It also has a good record of 'predicting' that future fossil finds will fit into the existing evolutionary tree. Obviously, many anomolies exist which is why evolution cannot be called 'known truth' but that does not undermine its usefulness and means it is superior to any other available theory.

Edited February 3, 2011 by TimG

[maple_leafs182]

The beauty of science is it is open to idea of being proven wrong.

[Wild Bill]

Forgive my misunderstanding. How would you differentiate between theories such as gravity and those that are still not bought-into by many scientists ?

In common usage any cockamamie idea can be called a theory but not to a scientist. In the scientific community, a theory is something that fits the facts and is a useful tool when working with the problem and all things connected to it.

Anything else is basically just balderdash!

We have had a number of theories about gravity over the years, including the effect of mass upon space from Einstein and lately even deeper and more involved aspects of modern physics. Each new theory was built upon the last. What happens is that a theory may work well until one day we discover some new aspect about gravity that it can't explain or predict. So a new theory is formed that satisfies everything the old one did PLUS the new input!

Some scientists may not totally agree with any theory but only if they feel that it is lacking in explaining or being useful in some cases. They aren't necessarily refusing to accept a theory at all, just differing over how accurate a tool is that theory. Their concerns are part of the pressure that gives way to improved theories. Rarely does the new theory prove 100% of the old theory false!

This of course is completely different from the idea of coming up with a biblical or religious myth that may or may not suit the facts in anything but a simplistic, primitive manner and holding to this myth forever, no matter what new evidence is unearthed.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Wild Bill

[TimG]

is a useful tool when working with the problem and all things connected to it.

The key word is useful. The problem is many people - including scientists - claim that a 'useful tool' is a 'known truth'. This creates conflict with religious types on what the 'known truths' are. Change the discussion to one of 'useful tools' and this problem goes away.

[Jonsa]

A scientific theory is quite different than a philosophical theory. A scientific theory is inductive and based on observation, quantifiable data and a set of rules (e.g. laws of physics). It is testable through experimentation and has predictive value.

God is philosophical theory dealing strictly with ideas and supernatural concepts. It does not require quantifiable data, does not need to conform to established rules, has no predictive value and cannot be tested through experimentation.

In what is a testament to human nature, many people of faith reject particular scientific theory on the grounds that it does not conform to their philosophical beliefs. Since evolution and the big bang are scientific theories, they cannot be objected to or negated by philosophical theories, yet that is exactly what is happening in communities of "faith".

Let not the facts nor the data nor the experimental results get in the way of ones religious beliefs based on faith.

[betsy]

Betsy:

You state:

"I believe that God exists whether proven by science or not. My belief is cemented by my faith."

That is fine but why have you setup your position based upon the premise God vs. Science?

It was the title of a book allegedly written by Einstein in 1921. It was the title given to the anecdote that followed.

Edited February 3, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

The theory of gravity is a fact, for example. Evolution is a fact too.

Gravity is no longer a theory. It's now the LAW OF GRAVITY....because it has been proven.

Evolution is definitely a theory. A debunked one at that.

Edited February 3, 2011 by betsy

[TimG]

Gravity is no longer a theory. It's now the LAW OF GRAVITY....because it has been proven.

Nonsense. Gravity has never been proven. The search for the Higgs boson at the LHC is a search for evidence that the current theory of gravity is actually correct.

The law of gravity is a mathematical equation which has been shown to correctly predict outcomes. It does not offer explainations. It is simply a calculation that has not been shown to be wrong.

Evolution is definitely a theory. A debunked one at that.

Have you read any of my posts on the distinction between a useful theory and true theory? Evolution is a useful theory because it allows us to predict future outcomes. None of the apparent anomolies change that. Intelligent design is a useless theory because it does not allow us to predict anything. No amount of "evidence" will ever change that.

[Bonam]

Gravity is no longer a theory. It's now the LAW OF GRAVITY....because it has been proven.

Evolution is definitely a theory. A debunked one at that.

:lol:

The funny thing is we still have a very limited understanding of gravity. We don't even know whether gravitational force is mediated by a force carrier particle (the hypothetical graviton) or not. We don't know whether gravity unifies with the other forces at high energies. We don't know why gravity is so weak compared to nature's 3 other forces. We don't know whether gravity acts through compactified dimensions. We have yet to experimentally observe gravitational waves though our best theories predict them to exist. We don't know if gravity acts in the same way over trans-galactic distances as it does on shorter length scales (the unexplained dark matter and dark energy in the universe could be related to gravity functioning differently on large spatial scales).

If anything, evolution is more fully understood and characterized than gravity is.

[The_Squid]

Gravity is no longer a theory. It's now the LAW OF GRAVITY....because it has been proven.

Evolution is definitely a theory. A debunked one at that.

lol

oh my.... what a post.

As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Intelligent Falling

Edited February 3, 2011 by The_Squid

[betsy]

Nonsense. Gravity has never been proven. The search for the Higgs boson at the LHC is a search for evidence that the current theory of gravity is actually correct.

The law of gravity is a mathematical equation which has been shown to correctly predict outcomes. It does not offer explainations. It is simply a calculation that has not been shown to be wrong.

Ooops. I thought that's why Newton's law of gravity is now a "law." If there has been changes to the law of gravity, I hope they're not substantive. I hate to think my friends and I will all be hurled into space.

Edited February 4, 2011 by betsy

[Bonam]

Nonsense. Gravity has never been proven. The search for the Higgs boson at the LHC is a search for evidence that the current theory of gravity is actually correct.

The law of gravity is a mathematical equation which has been shown to correctly predict outcomes. It does not offer explainations. It is simply a calculation that has not been shown to be wrong.

Have you read any of my posts on the distinction between a useful theory and true theory? Evolution is a useful theory because it allows us to predict future outcomes. None of the apparent anomolies change that. Intelligent design is a useless theory because it does not allow us to predict anything. No amount of "evidence" will ever change that.

Not quite true... Newton's gravity is "simply a calculation", but Einstein's general relativity does provide quite a bit of insight into the physical nature of gravity as the curvature of four dimensional spacetime, though it is not yet the whole story.

[dre]

Gravity is no longer a theory. It's now the LAW OF GRAVITY....because it has been proven.

Evolution is definitely a theory. A debunked one at that.

Actually youre have that exactly wrong.

We understand evolution a lot better than we understand gravity. Newtons law only works for medium sized objects, and general relativity fails to describe a lot of the features of gravity that we know exist.

Edited February 4, 2011 by dre

[WIP]

Ooops. I thought that's why Newton's law of gravity is now a "law." If there has been changes to the law of gravity, I hope they're not substantive. I hate to think my friends and I will all be hurled into space.

Why bother trying to debate the merits of science when you aren't even willing to do a search to learn what basic scientific terms mean?

A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

It's like having a science/religion debate with Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman

[Jonsa]

Actually youre have that exactly wrong.

We understand evolution a lot better than we understand gravity. Newtons law only works for medium sized objects, and general relativity fails to describe a lot of the features of gravity that we know exist.

General relativity equations predict virutally every aspect of gravity EXCEPT at the quantum level, much to Einstien's chagrin. As an aside, despite being one of the most important and revolutionary scientific advancements in history, its complete breakdown at the quantum level hints at an even more profound explanation of space/time. Maybe FTL without a wormhole will actually be attainable - beam me up!.

[kimmy]

It was the title of a book allegedly written by Einstein in 1921.

That book is as imaginary as the little story in your opening post.

-k

[Bonam]

General relativity equations predict virutally every aspect of gravity EXCEPT at the quantum level, much to Einstien's chagrin. As an aside, despite being one of the most important and revolutionary scientific advancements in history, its complete breakdown at the quantum level hints at an even more profound explanation of space/time.

Whoa someone said something about gravity that wasn't totally wrong. Do you have a scientific/technical background?

Maybe FTL without a wormhole will actually be attainable - beam me up!.

We can hope, although FTL travel implies causality-breaking which violates the Chronology Protection Conjecture.

[dre]

General relativity equations predict virutally every aspect of gravity EXCEPT at the quantum level, much to Einstien's chagrin. As an aside, despite being one of the most important and revolutionary scientific advancements in history, its complete breakdown at the quantum level hints at an even more profound explanation of space/time. Maybe FTL without a wormhole will actually be attainable - beam me up!.

Theres other problems with general relativately as well, and theres what Einstein himself calls fudge factors. One example I read about recently is how the strength of gravitomagnetic fields predicted by general relativity is wrong... not even remotely close actually. As you pointed out quantum entangle also undermines the theory.